Live feed
POS President Chump blames DEI for plane crash
- Free Board: General Discussion Forum
- 303 Replies
Dude, not liking someone doesn't mean you don't believe they deserve freedom. You do understand that right? His views of blacks needs to be viewed from the lens of his time. I'm sure all of our views would be different if we lived back then.If the Republican Party was the so called freedom party then why did Pres. Lincoln didn't like black people.
5 Things You May Not Know About Abraham Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation | HISTORY
The 16th U.S. president was firm in believing slavery was morally wrong, but his views on racial equality were sometimes more complicated.www.history.com
Lincoln still believed they deserved to be free, and look where we are today.
I can 100% deny there was a switch because it's not true. The switch narrative is nothing but propaganda. As the south became less racist it became more Republican. That's just a fact. Groups like the KKK that are hate groups have extremely small memberships. They are on their dying breath. With that said, if neither party are espousing your values of hate anymore, where are you going to land? You're going to land with whatever party lines up with your economic values. The Republican party does not and will not embrace the hatred those groups represent. The Democratic party knows this but they use those groups support as propaganda to make people like you believe that racism is alive and well in the party that fought to end it. WAKE UP! The Democrats are not your friends and never will be. The Republican party wishes hate groups will die and go away. They have no control over who gives them support.
BTW, Richard Spencer supported Kamala and David Duke supported Jill Stein in this last election (Spancer endorsed Biden in the one before this). So, where is your hand wringing over these KKK leaders supporting Democrats? Oh right, the propaganda machine hasn't told you to.
Wrong. Any time they have voted against any kind of "civil rights" bill, it had to do with either 1. the bill had pork on it they just could not back or 2. the bill would have violated the Constitution in some way. That doesn't mean they didn't believe in what the bill stood for, but we don't live in a vacuum. You cannot say people are against something when you don't know the context behind their vote against it.
I've read you rail on and on about Goldwater and how you call him a racist for how he voted on a civil rights bill, but if you took the time to look, you would see that Goldwater wanted the outcomes of that civil rights bill, however he feared that other people's Constitutional rights would have been violated based on how the bill was worded. I've pointed this out to you with links and everything, but you never read what I link for you. In fact, Goldwater voted FOR many of the other civil rights bills, but this is how Democrats use propaganda. They see an R vote against something and use that to slander the R's without the context behind it.
Correct, but only because Republicans have noticed that AA had a net negative effect. The R's believe in equality and AA did not align with that belief. Has nothing to do with racism as you're told to believe.
Getting rid of DEI is not a racist thing you dipshit. DEI means "didn't earn it." Do you think black people are unable to earn anything? Do you think that they must be handed things? Again, this is propaganda thinking that has you in a tizzy over this. The R party believes in merit. If you earn it, you deserve it and nobody can take that away from you. Talking with my black friends, they grew up in R districts and they all have amazing jobs and are very sucessful. Why is it that only blacks in D territories need DEI to succeed?
You need to look at the Democrats and their policies to understand why DEI was ever needed in the first place.
What in your mind made Goetz not qualified for the job? Sure, Bondi is great for the position, but how do you know Goetz wouldn't have been just as good? I sense more propaganda comming on.
